One Piece: Black Hole Mechanics

[Migue79]

Man, I'm only now getting tagged here? What happened here?

@Migue79 As you evaluated the calc in the OP, can you comment here on which, if any, parts of it you think are suitable?

I thought I made it clear with my evaluation in the blog that up to Math 2 (up to the GPE end) I was fine with and made it clear that I wasn't comfortable with treating it as a real black hole 1 to 1 thus not accepting any of the other methods that followed since it involved doing so (regardless if others did). Granted, my reasons are a little different on that front and I was willing to be overruled by other CGMs that feel comfortable treating it as one. But alas, no one is clearly comfortable with treating it as a for real black hole.

Not to mention, I was told ages ago by Spinosaurus that we don't really find LS from resisting the gravitational pull of a black hole so Math 3 can't really be used for the OP profiles even with me being comfortable with Math 1 and 2.

Also, check out posts from DontTalkDT here and the responses made to him, please.

Did, and I find the responses to DT's points a liiiiiiiittle more convincing. I get that we (apparently) expect fictional natural phenomena to adhere to any descriptions that use their real life counterparts (i.e. BB's Yami Yami no Mi sucking in light every time it appears and it having massive Destructive Capability), but if we're given believable and reasonable reasons for why it doesn't do so in those instances, then I feel like those can be overlooked. And I feel like in the instances provided by the opposing side, they were (unless there's any further context that I missed). Ntm, with a star-sized planet in question, I wouldn't really expect the human-sized Yami Yami no Mi to instantly fold the thing as argued above. Maybe over-time it's reasonable to expect (infinite gravity in general be damned), but now I am going off on tangents so I'll stop.

I'll stay here tuned in to see if anything that pops up here changes my mind on the whole ordeal. I gtg eat now, tho.

 

[Damage3245]

Thanks for commenting.

 

[DontTalkDT]

@DontTalkDT; could you take another look at some of the posts that have been made in response to you here, please?

Sure.

DT, did you not read where it explains in the same page how the mechanics of why black holes attract light due to the high density and mass is the same as to how Blackbeard does it?

Cause it sounds like you’re too focused too much on “he does it by gravity” instead of “he does it by gravity and these are mechanics of it”

I read it. I understood it too. It doesn't say that the darkness has immense mass in it, but just infinite gravity.
You are mixing the explanation given on how black holes work and the explanation given on how the darkness works. Just because these things are explained close to each other you can't just apply the explanations to each other. They are not saying the darkness is an actual black hole. Nor are they at any point saying it works exactly the same. If they did we wouldn't even have this debate, as if it were a black hole it would be obviously against our standards.

Basically, either you can claim it has actual black hole density mass inside, in which case our standards say no, or you can say it doesn't, and then you can't use mass.

But well, as said, the quote doesn't say the darkness has black hole mass in it at all. It says it has infinite gravity and the way it pulls in light is similar to a black hole.

That would make sense, but bb is implied to have full control over his fruit's infinite gravity.

But you can not guarantee for calc purposes that what he released is anything close to the full extent. In fact, all evidence speaks against that it is.

Well yes, but most gravity/space time manipulators dont have a physical representation of their powers, see Fujitora in the exact same series, his grqavity manipulation is shown as a purple colored effect. Accuracy aside, the fact that the yami fruit powers are supposed to be a blackhole would mean that they would have mass.

Also there's this scan which is quoted in kt's blog:

It has a visible form, but I don't see how that matters. It having a shape doesn't mean that it doesn't generate artificial gravity.

logias are the real-life element, also "but its darkness" has already been explained above.

That really doesn't weigh into this. If it doesn't behave like a black hole it's not a black hole.
Blackbeard also explicitly says his darkness is gravitation rather than a black hole or lots of matter. So all in all, it's a strong gravity power, not a power that creates a planet's worth of mass from nothing.

---

Honestly, let me bring up something else.

Blackbeard can actually puke out the stuff that he absorbed again. What's weird about that? Well, if it had been absorbed by infinite gravity the stuff should have been utterly disintegrated inside the darkness. That stuff is basically coming out in the same state it entered. Crushed, yes, but not crushed as much as that gravity should.
Not even the strength of gravity inside his darkness is depicted close to matching the suggested "infinite" value.
It also proves that Blackbeard can control the gravitational pull in a way that makes it abundantly clear that it can't be naturally generated by matter inside. The mass inside can never generate gravity so that it pushes things out, it can only attract.

I'm fairly sure, ultimately Blackbeard's darkness is just a gravity and absorption power, that behaves little like a black hole in any way or form. The only real connection is what the article says: They both can swallow light.

 

[Deceived3596]

@Arc7Kuroi I gave this man the blueprint and he acted on it ong.

Introducton:​

I guess I'll give my opinions on everything as I have now read through all the content provided.

Main Contention:​

I believe I can clearly say that I don't agree with this black hole being considered as an actual black hole, with mass that's relative with or calculated through the gravity given. The reason behind this is that we don't have enough evidence to presuppose the reason why the structure itself has that supposed "infinite gravitational pull" that's capable of absorbing light is because of the mass of the object. The object in question having "infinite gravity" or it being considered as a "black hole" isn't enough preponderance to assume the object gains those properties through the mass of the structure, rather than through esoteric means, such as separate effects. This is especially the case since Blackbeard's Devil Fruit is one that manipulates gravitational "concepts" like pull and push. He isn't creating an actual "black hole" through his fruit, but rather an object that has similar properties of one that's constructed of darkness.

Potential Problems with Assumptions Made:​

There are also other problems like assuming the "infinite gravity" in the first place is in-fact infinite gravity when the feats provided don't support this interpretation. It doesn't inherently disprove the interpretation, I agree. But it also doesn't support it, and can actively be used to discredit it. It also seemingly doesn't coincide with our Black Hole standards from what was stated by DontTalk. Which if that's the case, then even if it has properties similar to that of an actual black hole, it can't be assumed a real one, regardless of supplemental evidence and deductive reasoning.

Possibly or Likely Ratings:​

I don't believe we have enough evidence to use a "possibly" or "likely" rating as both presuppose a level of evidence supporting the claim, but because of the lack of direct evidence or a level of ambiguity going on. It can't be accepted as a concrete one.

The evidence which would be used to support the idea of this object having mass comparable with its gravitational pull would be the fact that it's explained similar to how black holes in our world work functionally. But the issue with this supporting the mass interpretation is that objects having similar properties aren't evidence of them having similar constitutions. We need evidence of the latter, not the former.

If someone can provide evidence of this object having mass that would coincide with its level of gravitational pull that isn't dependent on faulty presumptions, than I believe there could be a case for this. But if that evidence doesn't exist, than I can't personally agree with the interpretation provided by the OP.

Conclusions:​

For those who don't read the entirety of this post, the TLDR of it is that I don't agree with the assumptions made by the OP, so I disagree with the calc.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

Uh um yuh Triple D’s FRA (Deceived DT Damage)

 

[Nierre]

Arc is such a D rider FRA

 

[KingTempest]

Me: I know this shit isn't a real black hole, but because of the escape velocity formula I can find its mass
VSBW: I disagree with the notion in the OP that this is a black hole

 

[SnookB]

Everyone opposing is arguing the wrong thing and somehow it's working. This site's mind blowing

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

Y’all need to try putting your special reading glasses on and rereading DontTalkDeceivedT’s post ong

 

[SnookB]

"I'm calculating its mass via the escape velocity stated"
"But it's not a real black hole"

This thread's a rubber room

 

[Damage3245]

@SnookB; if the object in question doesn't behave anything like an object with that escape velocity should, then it seems right to be skeptical about it.

 

[KingTempest]

@SnookB; if the object in question doesn't behave anything like an object with that escape velocity should, then it seems right to be skeptical about it.

This sentence in itself pretty much said "50% of the first page's arguments will be ignored"

 

[Deceived3596]

Can those who're arguing against our interpretations actually read our post?

We aren't saying you're arguing the black hole is in fact "real" in the sense of it being an actual black hole from space. The "real" aspect of that would be it having properties that are gained through having a similar constitution of a "real" black hole. Such as having mass that's dense enough to create gravitational pull that can absorb even light. This distinction has been explained multiple times and even after all of those times you guys still don't understand this.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

I read it. I understood it too. It doesn't say that the darkness has immense mass in it, but just infinite gravity.
You are mixing the explanation given on how black holes work and the explanation given on how the darkness works. Just because these things are explained close to each other you can't just apply the explanations to each other. They are not saying the darkness is an actual black hole. Nor are they at any point saying it works exactly the same. If they did we wouldn't even have this debate, as if it were a black hole it would be obviously against our standards.

Basically, either you can claim it has actual black hole density mass inside, in which case our standards say no, or you can say it doesn't, and then you can't use mass.

But well, as said, the quote doesn't say the darkness has black hole mass in it at all. It says it has infinite gravity and the way it pulls in light is similar to a black hole.

Y’all need to reread this fr

Like gravity is the curvature of spacetime, and irl it’s objects of mass that we associate with curving that spacetime and thus mass is associated with gravity. But in fiction that isn’t the case, you have characters who can either simply bend spacetime or generate gravity through “magical means”. Neither of which requires the presence of mass for the gravity. So, what DT is saying is that the immense gravity of BB’s darkness does not prove BH level density and thus immense mass. BB can conjure this immense gravity with BH like effects and not be creating objects with BH density.

 

[KingTempest]

Yall need to be on the same damn page then

Cause first Damage came and said that he can willingly activate the mass aspect of the attack, and when that mass is manifested, the gravity absorbs it. On top of that, he doesn't believe it can genuinely absorb light. This would mean that the gravity is dependent on the mass, and the gravity not manifesting until he "activates said mass" shows that the mass is the reason for the gravity.

Then next, DT came and spoke about how gravity manipulators don't need to generate mass in order to manipulate gravity, and then he said that although it has shape doesn't mean that it doesn't have artificial gravity, contradicting Damage's point about how it has mass, and the mass generates gravity, but it's just not constant. On top of that, he notes the quotes of him being able to attract light, something Damage disagrees with. He also notes that it does have infinite gravity, but the properties of said infinite gravity aren't akin to realistic black hole effects.

Then finally Deceived manifested himself into the thread, noting how he aligns with DT's point about how it doesn't necessarily copy the Black Hole's property of having that gravity through the generated mass mass (contradicting Damage's argument), but then he says that the infinite gravity point isn't actually infinite gravity (contradicting DT's point).

Then they're all contradicted by the simple facts of the series.
Blackbeard's darkness has mass. It doesn't just manifest gravity, it is tangible and it can push things.
Damage's point about its changing mass are accurate, because it can move through the ground and not affect it, but when it increases in its density, it gains more darkness and starts to absorb.
The darkness isn't the gravity. The darkness generates its own gravity. So Blackbeard doesn't just "generate gravity", it generates darkness which generates gravity.
The mechanics of the innards of his dimension are unknown and don't need to necessarily output that effect in its pocket dimension, as black holes don't have pocket dimensions, and it's one of the few things that differ between BB's black hole and realistic black holes.
Blackbeard's mechanic is specifically tied to the real world application of it, as it says

"Various unique natural phenomena can be found in the world of "One Piece". These phenomena are not all "fantasy," and similar phenomena can be observed in the real world as well. In this section, we will discuss two natural phenomena that occur in the real world."

And Oda making an entire magazine page to just say "they both absorb light and they both have gravitational forces" and him giving a full explanation on how black holes do what they do because of mass... and not correlating it to the other because it's not verbatimly stated.
He didn't say that the gravitational portion of BB's Black Hole technique was akin to irl black holes because it can absorb things, but he specifically said that the part of how it attracts light is what's similar to an irl black hole.

It also has an infinite gravitational pull that keeps any light from escaping. This part of the technique is similar to that of a celestial black hole.

So basically.
You all disagree for completely different reasons, and somehow you each manage to support my argument by essentially damaging each others' points.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

Being able to interact with the environment is not proof of mass. It clashing with other attacks, moving people, traveling through the ground, etc etc etc etc don’t prove that it’s got mass or more specifically that it has BH levels of density and thus that extreme mass.

Just because BH extreme gravity comes from immense mass, doesn’t equate to the same for BB’s fruit. Oda doesn’t say “his darkness has that similar insane density”, Oda only compares the gravitational attraction. Him providing a tldr on BHs doesn’t mean anything.

Regardless of BB’s fruit being able to absorb light, doesn’t give it BH density. It’s as you quote, it’s the gravitation that is akin to the BH, not the mass or density.

 

[Kachon123]

don’t prove that it’s got mass

It's LITERALLY been stated MORE THAN 5 times that is has mass.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

It's LITERALLY been stated MORE THAN 5 times that is has mass.

1) not in KT’s section of the post
2) if you read carefully the point isn’t that the darkness cannot have mass, but that there’s no proof of it having BH levels of density, and thus immense mass obtained from the calc that assumes such

 

[Damage3245]

Not going to respond to the whole thing right now as it's late, but for thos:

it is tangible and it can push things.

That's not the darkness pushing anything. It's Blackbeard expelling material he's already absorbed.

 

[KingTempest]

Being able to interact with the environment is not proof of mass. It clashing with other attacks, moving people, traveling through the ground, etc etc etc etc don’t prove that it’s got mass or more specifically that it has BH levels of density and thus that extreme mass.

What is with you guys and "has Black Hole levels of density". Nobody is saying that.

This shit is astronomically lighter than a Black Hole. Like 1/100th of the mass of it.

Oh yeah. It starts off as smoke, which has mass. You need to prove why it doesn't have mass, when it clearly appears like something that has mass.

This isn't an energy blast. If this shit isn't a proton or a gluon, I fail to see why it doesn't have mass.

 

[Kachon123]

2) if you read carefully the point isn’t that the darkness cannot have mass, but that there’s no proof of it having BH levels of density, and thus immense mass obtained from the calc that assumes such

It's stated that it has its own gravitational pull as a result of its mass, with said pull being strong enough that light can't escape, similarly to natural Black Holes.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

What is with you guys and "has Black Hole levels of density". Nobody is saying that.

This shit is astronomically lighter than a Black Hole. Like 1/100th of the mass of it.

Oh yeah. It starts off as smoke, which has mass. You need to prove why it doesn't have mass, when it clearly appears like something that has mass.

This isn't an energy blast. If this shit isn't a proton or a gluon, I fail to see why it doesn't have mass.

KT density isn’t proportionate to size it’s a mass per volume. We know it’s lighter because it’s smaller than natural black holes. But you essentially using the schwarzschild radius formula in order to get mass as DT described, which is the equation used to find BH masses. So a byproduct of that is you’re assuming that BB’s darkness has BH level DENSITY, which results in a large amount of mass.

Again, things that should be massless interact with the environment all the time in fiction. Beams of light, energy attacks, lasers, etc. The darkness interacting with the environment isn’t proof of immense mass due to BH levels of density.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

It's stated that it has its own gravitational pull as a result of its mass, with said pull being strong enough that light can't escape, similarly to natural Black Holes.

It’s stated to have “infinite gravity” which pulls light, can you link the scan where it says “BB’s fruit is able to pull light because of its mass”?

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

It's LITERALLY been stated MORE THAN 5 times that is has mass.

PLUS, its stated to be the ONLY tangible logia fruit, which is why blackbeard can get damaged without haki.

 

[KingTempest]

KT density isn’t proportionate to size it’s a mass per volume. We know it’s lighter because it’s smaller than natural black holes. But you essentially using the schwarzschild radius formula in order to get mass as DT described, which is the equation used to find BH masses. So a byproduct of that is you’re assuming that BB’s darkness has BH level DENSITY, which results in a large amount of mass.

ok

Again, things that should be massless interact with the environment all the time in fiction. Beams of light, energy attacks, lasers, etc. The darkness interacting with the environment isn’t proof of immense mass due to BH levels of density.

Beams of light and lasers having mass and being able to interact with the environment removes it from following our standards of being real light, and it's then assumed to have mass..
The darkness acting as an object with mass is proof that is has mass.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

Beams of light and lasers having mass and being able to interact with the environment removes it from following our standards of being real light, and it's then assumed to have mass..
The darkness acting as an object with mass is proof that is has mass.

Interacting with the environment is not proof of mass. Those lasers being fit for our lightspeed standards or not isn’t pertinent to the argument I made.

 

[KingTempest]

Interacting with the environment is not proof of mass.

Based on what?

Those lasers being fit for our lightspeed standards or not isn’t pertinent to the argument I made.

It is, because whenever they do interact, we mark them as "light w/ mass", which doesn't fit the standards

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

Because it’s fiction. In real life OP’s planet cannot even exist. It’s a series with funny fruits that give you magical powers. Stuff interacting with the environment is not proof of having mass. If YOU want to claim the darkness has an immense mass, the burden of proof is on YOU. Darkness in and of itself, isn’t even some real particle of mass to begin with, so let’s not pretend that it should obviously have immense levels of mass inherently.

 

[MonkeyOfLife]

This should help I think

ヤミヤミの実
能力者:マーシャル・D・ティーチ(黒ひげ)

闇を操る力･･･それは、光をも捉える引力の事･･･!全てを引き寄せ、押し潰し無に帰す力を有する。他者が持つ悪魔の実の能力すら引力で封じるが、自然系の中では唯一実体を持ち、敵味方関係なく攻撃を引き寄せるなどの弱点もある。

↓ 引力で引き寄せた物を″解放„し、攻撃に用いる事も可能だ!
————————
Yami Yami no Mi
Power: Marshall D. Teach (Blackbeard)

The power to control the darkness... It is the power of attraction that captures light as well...! It has the power to attract everything, crush it, and bring it back to nothing. It is the only natural type that has a physical form, and it also has weaknesses, such as attracting attacks from both friend and foe alike.

↓ It is also capable of "releasing" objects drawn to it by its gravitational pull and using them to attack!

Says
It has the power to attract everything, crush it, and bring it back to nothing.
And also this
It is the only natural type that has a physical form

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

---

Honestly, let me bring up something else.

Blackbeard can actually puke out the stuff that he absorbed again. What's weird about that? Well, if it had been absorbed by infinite gravity the stuff should have been utterly disintegrated inside the darkness. That stuff is basically coming out in the same state it entered. Crushed, yes, but not crushed as much as that gravity should.
Not even the strength of gravity inside his darkness is depicted close to matching the suggested "infinite" value.
It also proves that Blackbeard can control the gravitational pull in a way that makes it abundantly clear that it can't be naturally generated by matter inside. The mass inside can never generate gravity so that it pushes things out, it can only attract.

I'm fairly sure, ultimately Blackbeard's darkness is just a gravity and absorption power, that behaves little like a black hole in any way or form. The only real connection is what the article says: They both can swallow light.

kt ninja'd me on pretty much everything relevant i wanted to say, but blackbeard states he can turn the things he sucks in into nothingness. if he does or not depends on if he chooses to, like what's been argued multiple times here.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

If we are going to sit here and argue "well BB can choose to lower his gravity" and argue that his insane gravity comes from mass, then you cannot use the sizes of the darkness he uses against Ace to calc its mass assuming it can suck in light then anyway lol. Because if the darkness that BB summoned in his fight with Ace had the mass to generate gravity that can capture light, that town wouldn't be there. Or if you argue he's just changing his gravity and not the mass, then you're conceding that the mass doesn't determine the strength of his gravity. So intrinsically you're arguing he can vary the mass within his darkness, let's follow that logic through.

To break this down, here's the issue y'all create by saying he can dial his mass at will to change the effects of his gravity:
BB's darkness against Ace can absorb light -> BB's darkness is 5-C (or whatever the GPE got) -> but BB's darkness didn't exert any damage that would be proportional to the scale of the calc (town isn't destroyed despite being absorbed by his darkness) -> that's because BB can control his gravity aka BB can somehow vary the mass of his darkness -> so darkness used wasnt the darkness with enough mass to absorb light, since it doesnt display the effects consistent with such -> therefore the calc is wrong cuz it assumes that very darkness (used against Ace) was the darkness with enough mass to absorb light.

Aka if you're going to argue we don't see the consistent effects that would occur by virtue of the calc because he can vary the gravity, then the calc itself falls apart, since it predicates itself on that presupposition. And that's ignoring all the other multitude of issues we (DT, Damage, Deceived, and I) have brought forth.

 

[MonkeyOfLife]

that's because BB can control his gravity aka BB can somehow vary the mass of his darkness

Don't think thats the case, as he wants to show the liberation technique...

What it seems that he does first is gravitational pulling and once the things goes into the darkness, he stores it into his dimension instead of completing crushing it into nothingness

 

[KingTempest]

If we are going to sit here and argue "well BB can choose to lower his gravity" and argue that his insane gravity comes from mass, then you cannot use the sizes of the darkness he uses against Ace to calc its mass assuming it can suck in light then anyway lol. Because if the darkness that BB summoned in his fight with Ace had the mass to generate gravity that can capture light, that town wouldn't be there. Or if you argue he's just changing his gravity and not the mass, then you're conceding that the mass doesn't determine the strength of his gravity. So intrinsically you're arguing he can vary the mass within his darkness, let's follow that logic through.

To break this down, here's the issue y'all create by saying he can dial his mass at will to change the effects of his gravity:
BB's darkness against Ace can absorb light -> BB's darkness is 5-C (or whatever the GPE got) -> but BB's darkness didn't exert any damage that would be proportional to the scale of the calc (town isn't destroyed despite being absorbed by his darkness) -> that's because BB can control his gravity aka BB can somehow vary the mass of his darkness -> so darkness used wasnt the darkness with enough mass to absorb light, since it doesnt display the effects consistent with such -> therefore the calc is wrong cuz it assumes that very darkness (used against Ace) was the darkness with enough mass to absorb light.

Aka if you're going to argue we don't see the consistent effects that would occur by virtue of the calc because he can vary the gravity, then the calc itself falls apart, since it predicates itself on that presupposition. And that's ignoring all the other multitude of issues we (DT, Damage, Deceived, and I) have brought forth.

You just said a bunch of nothing.

If he wants to increase the gravity he can just increase the mass of the smoke in that size. It's really that simple.

You're now trying to tie the potency of the gravity to the size and say that the size in the calc is wrong, when it doesn't really matter
He can have darkness that takes up the same space and change in potency of gravity, just like he can go from "no gravity" to "certain amount of gravity".

If he wants it to increase to the point of being able to absorb light then he can. And since you were the one who brought up that random argument, now its your burden of proof to apparently prove the claim that its strength relies on its distance

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

Me trying to figure out where I said the gravity was tied to its size or distance (hint, I never did).

But since KT said my argument is a bunch of nothing, that must be true guys, lets close this thread and apply it, all hail lord KT.

All seriously I don't know how you can read my post and extract something I never claimed from it and ignore the rest. I ain't gonna keep arguing with you tho, I'll just leave it to the CGM to vote.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

But since KT said my argument is a bunch of nothing, that must be true guys, lets close this thread and apply it, all hail lord KT.

glad you finally see the light

 

[KingTempest]

Me trying to figure out where I said the gravity was tied to its size or distance (hint, I never did).

But since KT said my argument is a bunch of nothing, that must be true guys, lets close this thread and apply it, all hail lord KT.

All seriously I don't know how you can read my post and extract something I never claimed from it and ignore the rest. I ain't gonna keep arguing with you tho, I'll just leave it to the CGM to vote.

vast majority of your argument was "can't use that cause it would've destroyed the town", forgetting the point that everybody here, supporting or opposing, is saying.

Beard can control what he attracts

Idk how to say it better for the people in the back. he doesn't just control his gravity, he controls what he affects

And everyone agreeing with your point just missed the first page, and it's frustrating that we keep voicing it, but one of the main arguments is "he would've destroyed everything".

We've seen his darkness under people and not absorb them but they absorb things that the user wants them to absorb

You keep bringing up debunked points with fancy wording and acting like they're new points.

If we are going to sit here and argue "well BB can choose to lower his gravity" and argue that his insane gravity comes from mass, then you cannot use the sizes of the darkness he uses against Ace to calc its mass assuming it can suck in light then anyway lol. Because if the darkness that BB summoned in his fight with Ace had the mass to generate gravity that can capture light, that town wouldn't be there. Or if you argue he's just changing his gravity and not the mass, then you're conceding that the mass doesn't determine the strength of his gravity. So intrinsically you're arguing he can vary the mass within his darkness, let's follow that logic through.

To break this down, here's the issue y'all create by saying he can dial his mass at will to change the effects of his gravity:
BB's darkness against Ace can absorb light -> BB's darkness is 5-C (or whatever the GPE got) -> but BB's darkness didn't exert any damage that would be proportional to the scale of the calc (town isn't destroyed despite being absorbed by his darkness) -> that's because BB can control his gravity aka BB can somehow vary the mass of his darkness -> so darkness used wasnt the darkness with enough mass to absorb light, since it doesnt display the effects consistent with such -> therefore the calc is wrong cuz it assumes that very darkness (used against Ace) was the darkness with enough mass to absorb light.

Aka if you're going to argue we don't see the consistent effects that would occur by virtue of the calc because he can vary the gravity, then the calc itself falls apart, since it predicates itself on that presupposition. And that's ignoring all the other multitude of issues we (DT, Damage, Deceived, and I) have brought forth.

Your point here is this.
"Blackbeard can absorb light, so it gets this yield for GPE. It didn't destroy anything? It's cause he can control his gravity cause he can vary the mass of his darkness. The darkness used here isn't the one with enough mass to absorb light because it doesn't showcase the effects of a gravity strong enough to absorb light.

Now... let's add a point at the end.

The mf can absorb certain things with said gravity.

He can absorb buildings yet choose not to absorb people in the same pull session.
If he wants to absorb buildings but not absorb the ground directly under it, then he can.
If he wants to absorb light but not absorb the ground directly under it, then he can.

So your point about the destruction not matching is folly, because the mf doesn't need to destroy a chunk of the damn planet in order to create a Yamigularity strong enough to absorb light, since he himself can CHOOSE NOT TO DESTROY THE PLANET.

I apologize for my rudeness but there's so much blatant "no" I see that the point we've strained to DT (over and over) and Damage (over and over) and why there's CGMs who agree and disagree who have blatantly voiced that finding said mass is alright.

Yes, the problem with black hole feats is more about the consequences of gravity in any given physical framework, finding the mass itself is perfectly fine.

Did, and I find the responses to DT's points a liiiiiiiittle more convincing. I get that we (apparently) expect fictional natural phenomena to adhere to any descriptions that use their real life counterparts (i.e. BB's Yami Yami no Mi sucking in light every time it appears and it having massive Destructive Capability), but if we're given believable and reasonable reasons for why it doesn't do so in those instances, then I feel like those can be overlooked. And I feel like in the instances provided by the opposing side, they were (unless there's any further context that I missed). Ntm, with a star-sized planet in question, I wouldn't really expect the human-sized Yami Yami no Mi to instantly fold the thing as argued above. Maybe over-time it's reasonable to expect (infinite gravity in general be damned), but now I am going off on tangents so I'll stop.

But no. "It didn't destroy a lot", when that's the argument here that's been countered heavily.

When I said your argument is a bunch of nothing, I meant 2 things.
1. Your argument said nothing new of substance
2. Your argument has already been debunked DAYS AGO, yet it's still being brought up as if it's a new point all cause there's a new pfp and a new username saying it

 

[Deceived3596]

Then finally Deceived manifested himself into the thread, noting how he aligns with DT's point about how it doesn't necessarily copy the Black Hole's property of having that gravity through the generated mass mass (contradicting Damage's argument), but then he says that the infinite gravity point isn't actually infinite gravity (contradicting DT's point).

There are two wrong things in this section. I didn't say that the "infinite gravity point" wasn't actually "infinite gravity". What I specifically claimed was that it's contentious on if the statement itself was direct or hyperbolic, explaining why through the fact of arguable contradicting evidence. I never made the claim that it does or doesn't. It's even extremely implied by the name of that specific section, with it being called "potential problems with assumptions made".

For those quotes:

"There are also other problems like assuming the "infinite gravity" in the first place is in-fact infinite gravity when the feats provided don't support this interpretation. It doesn't inherently disprove the interpretation, I agree. But it also doesn't support it, and can actively be used to discredit it."

As for what DT said, DT never claimed he agreed with the point, in actuality he specifically calls into question how truthful the "infinite gravity" statement actually is. What he was doing was addressing the fact that the statement provided only brings up the infinite gravity part, not actually anything directly related to the mass of the object or not.

For those quotes:

"But well, as said, the quote doesn't say the darkness has black hole mass in it at all. It says it has infinite gravity and the way it pulls in light is similar to a black hole."

"stuff is basically coming out in the same state it entered. Crushed, yes, but not crushed as much as that gravity should.
Not even the strength of gravity inside his darkness is depicted close to matching the suggested "infinite" value."

Then they're all contradicted by the simple facts of the series.
Blackbeard's darkness has mass. It doesn't just manifest gravity, it is tangible and it can push things.
Damage's point about its changing mass are accurate, because it can move through the ground and not affect it, but when it increases in its density, it gains more darkness and starts to absorb.
The darkness isn't the gravity. The darkness generates its own gravity. So Blackbeard doesn't just "generate gravity", it generates darkness which generates gravity.
The mechanics of the innards of his dimension are unknown and don't need to necessarily output that effect in its pocket dimension, as black holes don't have pocket dimensions, and it's one of the few things that differ between BB's black hole and realistic black holes.
Blackbeard's mechanic is specifically tied to the real world application of it, as it says

There's numerous issues in this post.

Starting off with something light, most people, with the possible exception of Arc, haven't disagreed with the idea of Blackbeard's Devil Fruit having mass. The contention exists because of the argument that this mass is proportional to the amount needed to create gravitational pull strong enough to absorb light.

You're making an assumption about how the Devil Fruit functionally works, you're presupposing why this fruit was previously capable of flowering under the buildings, and after which, was capable of then absorbing them. There's nothing that proves it's a change of density and mass that's causing the structures to be absorbed. It's equally as possible, within a vacuum, that the shadows were intangible previously, and then through Blackbeard's manipulation of these esoteric properties, became tangible to affect objects around it. Nothing concretely says there's a change of density and mass going on.

It's especially true in Blackbeard's case since Blackbeard's manipulation of this property isn't explicitly related to "mass" or "density" changes, but rather the manipulation of gravitational pull and push of his darkness.

This is also discarding the fact that even if there is a change of density and mass going on, it doesn't prove that change would inherently be proportional with the gravitational pull it creates.

That distinction doesn't matter as both fundamentally are the same, Blackbeard generates his gravity through the darkness while most gravity manipulators generate their gravity through other means. Both still are generating and manipulating gravity.

I'm not entirely sure what exactly this "effect" means, but I'm guessing it's in reference to the infinite gravity statement. As if it is, then that's heavily implied not true as the statement of it having "infinite gravity" was made when it was sucking objects into that pocket dimension and crushing them. It's in clear reference to the gravitational force being applied onto the objects.

The paragraph doesn't name "mechanics" existing but rather those "phenomena" exist, which can be interpreted multiple different ways. The "phenomena" of something is just the "existence" of the thing. It's actually stated that "similar phenomena" exist in our world, not 1-1 iterations. So there's a level of ambiguity regarding what's comparable or not.

And Oda making an entire magazine page to just say "they both absorb light and they both have gravitational forces" and him giving a full explanation on how black holes do what they do because of mass... and not correlating it to the other because it's not verbatimly stated.
He didn't say that the gravitational portion of BB's Black Hole technique was akin to irl black holes because it can absorb things, but he specifically said that the part of how it attracts light is what's similar to an irl black hole.

Him explaining how IRL black holes operate and him explaining how Blackbeard's Devil Fruit has similar properties to those black holes isn't him saying Blackbeard's Devil Fruit expresses those properties through the same means. Literally nothing of this is implied, it's you presupposing such because of the aforementioned comparison of properties.

It's similar to how it attracts that light, as in its gravitational pull. Not how it creates that gravitational pull that's strong enough to attract light. Two massive distinctions.

So basically.
You all disagree for completely different reasons, and somehow you each manage to support my argument by essentially damaging each others' points.

This just isn't true, we all agree on the fundamental point and most of the supplemental arguments provided.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

I ain't readin allat until at least tomorrow, me no like lots of text (playing dnd rn)

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

There are two wrong things in this section. I didn't say that the "infinite gravity point" wasn't actually "infinite gravity". What I specifically claimed was that it's contentious on if the statement itself was direct or hyperbolic, explaining why through the fact of arguable contradicting evidence. I never made the claim that it does or doesn't. It's even extremely implied by the name of that specific section, with it being called "potential problems with assumptions made".

For those quotes:

"There are also other problems like assuming the "infinite gravity" in the first place is in-fact infinite gravity when the feats provided don't support this interpretation. It doesn't inherently disprove the interpretation, I agree. But it also doesn't support it, and can actively be used to discredit it."

As for what DT said, DT never claimed he agreed with the point, in actuality he specifically calls into question how truthful the "infinite gravity" statement actually is. What he was doing was addressing the fact that the statement provided only brings up the infinite gravity part, not actually anything directly related to the mass of the object or not.

For those quotes:

"But well, as said, the quote doesn't say the darkness has black hole mass in it at all. It says it has infinite gravity and the way it pulls in light is similar to a black hole."

"stuff is basically coming out in the same state it entered. Crushed, yes, but not crushed as much as that gravity should.
Not even the strength of gravity inside his darkness is depicted close to matching the suggested "infinite" value."

In order to absorb light, you need infinite gravity, as reaching the speed of light requires an infinite amount of ke.

There's numerous issues in this post.

Starting off with something light, most people, with the possible exception of Arc, haven't disagreed with the idea of Blackbeard's Devil Fruit having mass. The contention exists because of the argument that this mass is proportional to the amount needed to create gravitational pull strong enough to absorb light.

You're making an assumption about how the Devil Fruit functionally works, you're presupposing why this fruit was previously capable of flowering under the buildings, and after which, was capable of then absorbing them. There's nothing that proves it's a change of density and mass that's causing the structures to be absorbed. It's equally as possible, within a vacuum, that the shadows were intangible previously, and then through Blackbeard's manipulation of these esoteric properties, became tangible to affect objects around it. Nothing concretely says there's a change of density and mass going on.

That literally cannot be the case. The Yami Yami no mi is stated to have a tangible form, blackbeard cant just make it intangible at will, otherwise he would have the trademark immunity of other logias types.

It's especially true in Blackbeard's case since Blackbeard's manipulation of this property isn't explicitly related to "mass" or "density" changes, but rather the manipulation of gravitational pull and push of his darkness.

Addressed above, the yami yami no mi is tangible, this argument makes no sense

This is also discarding the fact that even if there is a change of density and mass going on, it doesn't prove that change would inherently be proportional with the gravitational pull it creates.

more mass = higher gravitational pull, simple science honestly

That distinction doesn't matter as both fundamentally are the same, Blackbeard generates his gravity through the darkness while most gravity manipulators generate their gravity through other means. Both still are generating and manipulating gravity.

I'm not entirely sure what exactly this "effect" means, but I'm guessing it's in reference to the infinite gravity statement. As if it is, then that's heavily implied not true as the statement of it having "infinite gravity" was made when it was sucking objects into that pocket dimension and crushing them. It's in clear reference to the gravitational force being applied onto the objects.

Does not say anything about the pocket dimension, blackbeard probably wanted to flex his power to ace. He later says in marineford he can reduce any object to nothingness, so its not that he cant either.

The paragraph doesn't name "mechanics" existing but rather those "phenomena" exist, which can be interpreted multiple different ways. The "phenomena" of something is just the "existence" of the thing. It's actually stated that "similar phenomena" exist in our world, not 1-1 iterations. So there's a level of ambiguity regarding what's comparable or not.

I think the average joe knows enough about blackholes to create a pretty accurate recreation.

Him explaining how IRL black holes operate and him explaining how Blackbeard's Devil Fruit has similar properties to those black holes isn't him saying Blackbeard's Devil Fruit expresses those properties through the same means. Literally nothing of this is implied, it's you presupposing such because of the aforementioned comparison of properties.

It's similar to how it attracts that light, as in its gravitational pull. Not how it creates that gravitational pull that's strong enough to attract light. Two massive distinctions.

It's the yami yami no mi, not the zushi zushi no mi, there's already a gravity fruit. And if oda himself saying the fruit is similar isnt enough of an implication, idk what is

This just isn't true, we all agree on the fundamental point and most of the supplemental arguments provided.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

bump